Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Backfire wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

As judgedoug mentioned above, the idea of FFG (or a company like FFG) owning GW sometime in the future is not unbelievable. Personally, I look forward to it.

Also, lots of people seem to be sure that 28mm Star Wars game is elephant in the room which is going to kill 40k. I don't think so. Sure, it would create buzz and probably be a success for at least some time, but in long term, it would run into same problem as LOTR: non-gaming universe is not really best suited for gaming fiction, and what looks good on a movie screen does not necessarily translate into visually impressive force on tabletop. GW had the chance to buy the license and didn't take it. If they had thought it was a sure-fire way to make money, I'm sure they would have.

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that a TTWG version of the SW universe would only survive short term. The sheer amount of volume of "cannon" and fan-made literature for the Star Wars universe dwarfs that which has been created for the 40K universe. It would take a tremendous amount of time, years if not decades, to address all the material that is out there, and there's an entire new trilogy of films coming out upon which to base even more material.

The only thing that really surprises me is why nobody has come along and tried to make a Star Wars table-top wargame prior to now. (Yes, I'm aware of the collectable thing they had before, that's not what I'm talking about.)

Saldiven wrote:
The only thing that really surprises me is why nobody has come along and tried to make a Star Wars table-top wargame prior to now.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Miniatures_Battles

Wrong time and place, if you ask me.

I'd argue the SW franchise would be better represented by a 10-15mm game, a 28mm AT-AT would be a tough prospect to produce, and even tougher to pull off at an affordable price.

Moot point though, as I think a SW tabletop wargame would take a huge bite out of GW's market right now, unless it was a total failure on several counts (ie atrocious models, ludicrous pricing and poor rules - they can probably get away with 2 out of 3 if 40K right now is any example.)

Humm I wonder just what a 15mm AT-AT would look like on a table? Troops would have to be silly tiny though.

 Manchu wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
The only thing that really surprises me is why nobody has come along and tried to make a Star Wars table-top wargame prior to now.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Miniatures_Battles

Wrong time and place, if you ask me.

Yay, someone other than me remembers this game.

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Humm I wonder just what a 15mm AT-AT would look like on a table? Troops would have to be silly tiny though.

Well, erm, no, they'd be 15mm!

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Humm I wonder just what a 15mm AT-AT would look like on a table? Troops would have to be silly tiny though.

They would be 15mm scale, or roughly 1/107. You know, like Flames of War.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Or this guy.

15mm miniatures have come a long way.

 azreal13 wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Humm I wonder just what a 15mm AT-AT would look like on a table? Troops would have to be silly tiny though.

Well, erm, no, they'd be 15mm!

15mm just seems like it'd be far to small to show any kind of detail on troops.

(edit for ninja'd)
Well I'll be. Those in the above post look pretty good, call me surprised.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue the SW franchise would be better represented by a 10-15mm game, a 28mm AT-AT would be a tough prospect to produce, and even tougher to pull off at an affordable price.

Moot point though, as I think a SW tabletop wargame would take a huge bite out of GW's market right now, unless it was a total failure on several counts (ie atrocious models, ludicrous pricing and poor rules - they can probably get away with 2 out of 3 if 40K right now is any example.)

Assuming wookipedia and the like are correct on their dimensions, at 28mm, an AT-AT would be a hair under 12" tall and a bit under 11" from nose to tail.

That's not really all that much bigger that some of the larger GW models.

Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

 Chute82 wrote:
Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

It didn't fail; the creator of the game lost their license. When that company was purchased by WotC, that company didn't decide to pursue that line of models.

From what I just read online, the game existed for almost 10 years before the license ended.

 Chute82 wrote:
Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

I don't see it either, and I certainly don't see it on a large level that would require an AT-AT model. I honestly don't really see it as a universe where people care that much about massed battles, TBH. People care about Sith, Jedi, and Bounty Hunters. Most couldn't give two gaks about Joe the Rebel Trooper.

And Weeble.... I have to be honest...I don't know that many of the properties you listed are really that hot right now save Game of Thrones. Conan? No. Gears of War? No (and I love the board game). Battlestar? No, though I'd love to see a Battlestar X-Wing game. I guess Cthulu is always popular as a whole, but it isn't in my area at all, and I personally think it's a lame property. I guess I think you're really underestimating how much people are invested in the 40k Universe. As much as Star Trek or Star Wars? Naw, I don't think so. But moreso than Conan or Gears or Battlestar, for sure.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

From what I just read online, the game existed for almost 10 years before the license ended.

And it pretty much died at the end because the interest dwindled considerably.

But I guess you'd have had to be there to know that, as opposed to reading it online.

 cincydooley wrote:

And Weeble.... I have to be honest...I don't know that many of the properties you listed are really that hot right now save Game of Thrones. Conan? No. Gears of War? No (and I love the board game). Battlestar? No, though I'd love to see a Battlestar X-Wing game. I guess Cthulu is always popular as a whole, but it isn't in my area at all, and I personally think it's a lame property. I guess I think you're really underestimating how much people are invested in the 40k Universe. As much as Star Trek or Star Wars? Naw, I don't think so. But moreso than Conan or Gears or Battlestar, for sure.

Again, it is a simple matter of understanding the actual point rather than finding something to isolate and nitpick out of context. The point is that FFG has a diverse and growing collection of products related to licenses that are getting more diverse, stronger, and from which FFG is creating products in the same categories as its GW licensed products. In a way you made my point pretty well despite your attempt to disagree.

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K RPGs and games may have been a comparatively big deal next to FFG's onece off Battlestar and Gears of War board games, and maybe even next to its Arkham series of board games. But today FFG has LotR, Game of Thrones, and Star Wars licenses, and is spinning out products from those licenses in multiple categories in which the GW licensed products merely co-exist. Conquest is simply another FFG LCG alongside similar products from more popular, more powerful, and more relevant brands. FFG's 40K RPGs now sit next to FFG's Star Wars RPGs, which any way you slice it have a broader appeal.

You may love 40K, but that does not make it a powerful global brand. Hell, even Judge Kennelly couldn't agree that the Games Workshop and Warhammer trademarks were famous marks.

And if you look at Google Trends, Warhammer 40,000 is pretty well on par with both BSG and GoW. Putting Star Wars in is like punching a blind kid and screws the graph all to Hell. Game of Thrones also sort of trashes the appearance of the graph. LoTR and Star Trek merely trounce Warhammer 40,000. And before you nitpick, Games Workshop's performance on Google Trend is much worse than Warhammer 40,000.

So, yea, facts and all that.

weeble1000 wrote:

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K RPGs and games may have been a comparatively big deal next to FFG's onece off Battlestar and Gears of War board games, and maybe even next to its Arkham series of board games. But today FFG has LotR, Game of Thrones, and Star Wars licenses, and is spinning out products from those licenses in multiple categories in which the GW licensed products merely co-exist. Conquest is simply another FFG LCG alongside similar products from more popular, more powerful, and more relevant brands. FFG's 40K RPGs now sit next to FFG's Star Wars RPGs, which any way you slice it have a broader appeal.

Yes...so?

So FFG has tons of brands and aren't 100% dependant on GW licenses (some of which have been milked rather dry, such as RPG's. There is only so much the market can take, so it's hardly huge big shock if they receive less attention presently). Good for them. I'm still not sure how this supposedly spells doom on Games Workshop.

Saldiven wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue the SW franchise would be better represented by a 10-15mm game, a 28mm AT-AT would be a tough prospect to produce, and even tougher to pull off at an affordable price.

Moot point though, as I think a SW tabletop wargame would take a huge bite out of GW's market right now, unless it was a total failure on several counts (ie atrocious models, ludicrous pricing and poor rules - they can probably get away with 2 out of 3 if 40K right now is any example.)

Assuming wookipedia and the like are correct on their dimensions, at 28mm, an AT-AT would be a hair under 12" tall and a bit under 11" from nose to tail.

That's not really all that much bigger that some of the larger GW models.

That's essentially two Warhounds in an AT-AT costume, it's pretty substantial.

 Chute82 wrote:
Do you really believe there is a demand for a star wars tabletop war-game? I just don't see it, maybe other do. They tried before and it failed.

Are you joking?

It would sell like hot-cakes (at a time when hot-cakes were massively popular!)

I find this talk of GW signing FFG to not make a 28mm SW game pretty amusing. If FFG thought they could make a pile of money out of it (and they would be right in thinking so) then they would make efforts to release it. The quality of the X-Wing game and rules makes me hopeful that if they did try, it would stand a good chance of being successful.

Backfire wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K RPGs and games may have been a comparatively big deal next to FFG's onece off Battlestar and Gears of War board games, and maybe even next to its Arkham series of board games. But today FFG has LotR, Game of Thrones, and Star Wars licenses, and is spinning out products from those licenses in multiple categories in which the GW licensed products merely co-exist. Conquest is simply another FFG LCG alongside similar products from more popular, more powerful, and more relevant brands. FFG's 40K RPGs now sit next to FFG's Star Wars RPGs, which any way you slice it have a broader appeal.

Yes...so?

So FFG has tons of brands and aren't 100% dependant on GW licenses (some of which have been milked rather dry, such as RPG's. There is only so much the market can take, so it's hardly huge big shock if they receive less attention presently). Good for them. I'm still not sure how this supposedly spells doom on Games Workshop.

When did I ever say that this spells doom on GW? All I said was that FFG probably isn't as reliant on GW as it was in years past and that FFG probably prefers it this way because dealing with GW is a fething nightmare.

Again, and again, all one has to do is appreciate the context of the present discussion. This all started when I thought it was amusing how the FFG CEO mentioned that Lucasfilm is a good licensor and stressed that he isn't obligated to say so. I felt that this was amusing in the context of FFG's long licencee relationship with GW, which it would be reasonable to speculate was never peachy in the first place and which has probably become politely volatile of late. Or not so politely. It's not like Allan Merrett hates berating people.

I amused myself by imagining that the subtext of the CEO's comment was a subtle F-you aimed at GW, which produced a slew of discussion surrounding whether FFG is better off with its Star Wars license than its GW license.

Nobody said GW is doomed or is dying or that FFG is going to take over GW next year. But some people in this thread do seem to think that X-Wing: The Miniatures Game doesn't compete directly with other table top miniatures wargames, that it isn't a wildly successful product for FFG, and that there's no reason GW would or should be concerned about a Star Wars license in the hands of one of its largest and most competent competitors.

If you think any of those things, I vehemently disagree with you.

weeble1000 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K RPGs and games may have been a comparatively big deal next to FFG's onece off Battlestar and Gears of War board games, and maybe even next to its Arkham series of board games. But today FFG has LotR, Game of Thrones, and Star Wars licenses, and is spinning out products from those licenses in multiple categories in which the GW licensed products merely co-exist. Conquest is simply another FFG LCG alongside similar products from more popular, more powerful, and more relevant brands. FFG's 40K RPGs now sit next to FFG's Star Wars RPGs, which any way you slice it have a broader appeal.

Yes...so?

So FFG has tons of brands and aren't 100% dependant on GW licenses (some of which have been milked rather dry, such as RPG's. There is only so much the market can take, so it's hardly huge big shock if they receive less attention presently). Good for them. I'm still not sure how this supposedly spells doom on Games Workshop.

When did I ever say that this spells doom on GW? All I said was that FFG probably isn't as reliant on GW as it was in years past and that FFG probably prefers it this way because dealing with GW is a fething nightmare.

Maybe I read it wrong, but wasn't the premise of your first post that FFGs relationship was coming to an end and that petersons lack of commentary about GW when asked a question about the Star Wars property indicated that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait no. It was, "go feth yourselves GW" says Chris Peterson.

 cincydooley wrote:
Wait no. It was, "go feth yourselves GW" says Chris Peterson.

Yea. Exactly. A humorously hyperbolic representation of increasing competitiveness between two major companies in the little niche market we all enjoy so well.

Forgive me for putting inappropriate words in Chris Peterson's mouth. You can tell him I'm sorry the next time you speak with him because I think it would make him feel so much better.

weeble1000 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Wait no. It was, "go feth yourselves GW" says Chris Peterson.

Yea. Exactly. A humorously hyperbolic representation of increasing competitiveness between two major companies in the little niche market we all enjoy so well.

Forgive me for putting inappropriate words in Chris Peterson's mouth. You can tell him I'm sorry the next time you speak with him because I think it would make him feel so much better.

I guess I just don't know which parts of what you say we should take verbatim and which we shouldn't! It's all very confusing! My sincerest apologies!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:

Again, and again, all one has to do is appreciate the context of the present discussion. This all started when I thought it was amusing how the FFG CEO mentioned that Lucasfilm is a good licensor and stressed that he isn't obligated to say so. I felt that this was amusing in the context of FFG's long licencee relationship with GW, which it would be reasonable to speculate was never peachy in the first place and which has probably become politely volatile of late. Or not so politely. It's not like Allan Merrett hates berating people.

I amused myself by imagining that the subtext of the CEO's comment was a subtle F-you aimed at GW, which produced a slew of discussion surrounding whether FFG is better off with its Star Wars license than its GW license.

Crazy, I read it as a 'subtle F-you aimed at Epic games and the Gears of War property since he didn't mention them. Or maybe the Howard estate and the Conan property since he didn't mention them...

Nobody said GW is doomed or is dying or that FFG is going to take over GW next year. But some people in this thread do seem to think that X-Wing: The Miniatures Game doesn't compete directly with other table top miniatures wargames,

Yep, that was me. And I still think that.

that it isn't a wildly successful product for FFG, and that there's no reason GW would or should be concerned about a Star Wars license in the hands of one of its largest and most competent competitors.
.

No one claimed that at all.

Edit: Off Topic. Sorry about cluttering the thread.

Listen, it isn't antagonistic nonsense. You're the one that made the outstanding leap that Peterson's omission of GW in his commentary about the Star Wars license was a "subtle feth you" to GW. Not me. You can get all pissy because people called you on that leap all you want, that's fine.

I don't believe the X-Wing game, while a huge money maker obviously, is a direct competitor to hobby tabletop games like Warhammer, Privateer Press, etc., as I've already stated. We disagree on that, and that's fine. I'm not contending that yours isn't a reasonable argument there.

Further, I've never said that the GW Warhammer IPs were anywhere near as valuable as the SW properties. They aren't. And it isn't close. I've said as much.

And if you look at Google Trends, Warhammer 40,000 is pretty well on par with both BSG and GoW.

If by "pretty well on par" you mean nearly double the interest over the past two years than BSG and Gears of War (save for the time frame when the last Gears game was released) and quadruple the interest of Conan.....

Again, no one was arguing that GW's IPs are bigger than Star Wars. Ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, I don't even know if you'll read this because you "put me on ignore" (is this a punishment?) but in the event that you do, I really think you should re-read your initial few comments on this thread. You make a huge leap that, by your own admission, involves a rather large leap and a lot of "reading between the lines" and when someone called you out on that rather large leap, you immediately got reeeaaaaaalllly defensive about.

I agree that not mentioning (or being asked about) GW in that interview is probably significant.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree that not mentioning (or being asked about) GW in that interview is probably significant.

Agreed. The GW licenses probably significantly accelerated FFG's growth as a company. Without those licenses, there's a chance FFG may not have been able to reach its current position where it was able to get a Star Wars license.

Anyway, I also think a 15mm Star Wars game could be amazing. I would buy into it.

weeble1000 wrote:
But FFG is clearly winding down its involvement with GW.

Just announced a 40K LCG.
Just released a Warhammer-themed version of Disk Wars.
Is releasing expansions for this Disk Wars.
Is releasing expansions for their Blood Bowl LCG.
Announced 2nd Edition of Dark Heresy.
Has an expansion for Relic coming out soon.
Still has announced books in the Only War and Black Crusade lines to come.

Winding down?

 Manchu wrote:
And RPG.

Which RPG did they cancel? Do you mean WFRP 3rd Ed?

I think Star Wars would be better served as a Firestorm Armada type of ship to ship space game. Smaller scale minis and much larger scale battles than X-wing.

If anyone wanted to kill GW overnight - they should just convince Blizzard to pull the 1-2 punch of StarCraft and Warcraft the tabletop mini game. They have the money, the background, the books, the audience, the ancillary products, everything, They could put together 2 tabletop games and have a complete range of topnotch minis for both systems in like 2 years, tops.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But you can take that to the extreme. If I spent $30 on take-out, then that's $30 I didn't spend on GW, so technically GW has lost market share to Pizza Hut (wat?).

That's absurd, I know, but going back to my original point and the whole reason we got started down this tangent: The interviewer or the CEO not mentioning GW products isn't as meaningful as some people are claiming. The interview was about the successes of FFG as a company, so they talk about their own brands plus their biggest license deals (of which Star Wars is obviously the biggest).

"He didn't mention GW, therefore XYZ..." just seems like people are looking for a free kick at GW where there is none.

True it does seem that way.

However I strongly feel that Games Workshop has become an Non-Issue in respect on how much influence it once has within it's niche and near market customer base. It is also said (discussed here on this site I believe) that the GW IP's are rather toxic. Not really many people wants an IP that has a negative label placed on it by their customer base.

I'm pleased to see how FFG has grown and diversified. They to me seem to understand their market and how to take advantage of it in a positive manner.

People use ICV2 as reference material, something I mentioned early on while joining this site. But you really have to subscribe to others, Like the NPD group as well as cultivating your sources to make calculated decisions. I still go to conventions, such as E3, Game developer's conference just to see certain aspects of the entertainment industry.

But anyhow the article was well received and I hope the best for FFG's future.

Adam

 azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue the SW franchise would be better represented by a 10-15mm game, a 28mm AT-AT would be a tough prospect to produce, and even tougher to pull off at an affordable price.

Agreed. With a 15mm range I'd probably buy most of it just to paint/display, but I've also got great faith in FFG's ability to write rules (X-Wing is brilliant) so I could see me getting into it in a big way.

weeble1000 wrote:

When did I ever say that this spells doom on GW? All I said was that FFG probably isn't as reliant on GW as it was in years past and that FFG probably prefers it this way because dealing with GW is a fething nightmare.

Is it? Has FFG made a statement to that effect?

weeble1000 wrote:

Again, and again, all one has to do is appreciate the context of the present discussion. This all started when I thought it was amusing how the FFG CEO mentioned that Lucasfilm is a good licensor and stressed that he isn't obligated to say so. I felt that this was amusing in the context of FFG's long licencee relationship with GW, which it would be reasonable to speculate was never peachy in the first place and which has probably become politely volatile of late.

How do you know it was "not peachy" and has "become...volatile"? Or do you simply assume that "because it's GW, it must be terrible".

And seriously, do you REALLY believe that a CEO is going to badmouth a licensor in a public interview, when they have licensed them a major cash cow? "In fact, Lucasfilm is a pretty awful partner to be honest. But we can make it work. It's a juicy license so we have to."

weeble1000 wrote:

Nobody said GW is doomed or is dying or that FFG is going to take over GW next year. But some people in this thread do seem to think that X-Wing: The Miniatures Game doesn't compete directly with other table top miniatures wargames, that it isn't a wildly successful product for FFG, and that there's no reason GW would or should be concerned about a Star Wars license in the hands of one of its largest and most competent competitors.

If you think any of those things, I vehemently disagree with you.

Well, go ahead and disagree. I still maintain that Star Wars tabletop wargame isn't an auto-success some people imagine it to be. The franchise is simply not something where large ground battles play a particularly noteworthy role and visual design of the ground forces reflects that. "Hey, with the all new Star Wars: Rise of the Imperium(tm) tabletop wargame you can recreate the epic battle between Trade Federation and Clone Troopers at the end of Episode II!" Yeah, you can just feel the excitement. If I was to design a Star Wars miniatures game post-X-wing, it would a spaceship battle akin to BFG, or a skirmish game with many named characters.

Sure, it would benefit from sales by hardcore SW collectors, who need to have everything, but those guys won't play with their minis, in fact they probably never even unbox them.

 Manchu wrote:

Backfire wrote:
GW had the chance to buy the license and didn't take it. If they had thought it was a sure-fire way to make money, I'm sure they would have.

Nothing about how GW actually does business supports that claim.

GW's strategy seems to be to make more and more stuff for 40K and WHFB, manipulating the rules and editions to get people to buy it.

Apart from the LoTR thing, which is nearly 15 years old, they haven't done any third party licences since the late 80s. That is about the time they stopped licensing third party stuff and started to concentrate on the WH/40K universe.